19.10.2005

CPGB not wanted

Some SWP members in Sheffield now genuinely seem to oppose the position they held regarding immigration controls only a couple of years ago. It looks like theory has finally caught up with rotten practice, says Lee Rock

The Sheffield Respect pre-conference meeting took place on Wednesday October 12. Having not been notified of a change of venue, CPGB comrades were fortunate to find out of the new meeting place and get there just in time. There were 34 members present, mostly supporters of the SWP. We were disappointed to find the resolutions and nominations from the CPGB were not included on the agenda. We were informed they had not arrived by the time the agenda was drawn up - despite the fact they had been sent to the designated email address prior to the deadline. Nobody from the steering committee, having realised their 'error', thought about making copies to bring to the meeting. Fortunately I had printed off 25 copies of the email, which included the motions and nominations, to bring to the meeting. The resolutions and nominations were then readily accepted by the chair. The meeting itself was a relatively hostile one, as far as the attitude of a few SWP hacks goes. Greg Challis - a leading SWPer in Sheffield - decided that for him political discussion/debate was not the order of the day. Comrade Challis was happy with simply calling people liars whenever he felt like it. He was also keen to heckle CPGB speakers and insisted on making the point that CPGB members were 'not wanted' in Respect. The issue of inclusiveness for comrade Challis can only go so far, it seems - he certainly does not wish to include anyone to the left of the SWP. It may well be the case that comrade Challis actually believes that because people like him do not want the CPGB involved we will simply not bother turning up. This Stalinist approach from comrade Challis, an approach that relies on intimidation, is hardly likely to work. Following a number of local reports and an appeal for funds/support regarding the earthquake in Kashmir, we moved on to the election of a new steering committee. The outgoing comrades had proposed a new committee of 15. They also conveniently proposed 15 names. On the basis of my nomination (now included on the agenda) I proposed we simply increase the number to 16. This was hotly debated, with a couple of SWP members strongly arguing that, as I had not been involved in the general election campaign, I did not deserve to be on the committee and that, anyway, the CPGB were out to wreck Respect and that my presence on the steering committee would destroy the organisation in Sheffield. I pointed out that I had been on the Respect steering committee in Waltham Forest prior to moving north and that this was an area also dominated by SWP members. I had also been selected as a candidate twice in local elections for the SWP-led Socialist Alliance. The proposal to increase the number from 15 to 16 was defeated with only four votes in favour. Come the election to the committee itself, I received five votes, with the rest of the slate getting about 25. We then moved on to the election of delegates to conference. There were 14 places and again a slate of the required number had been presented by the outgoing steering committee. Unfortunately seven of the 14 were unable to be at the meeting. As I was now the 15th candidate for the 14 places, the SWP attempted to exclude my name from the ballot by simply putting their own slate to the vote. Fortunately I had a copy of the national standing orders, which stated clearly that there must be an exhaustive vote. The chair, to his credit, did his best to follow the rules despite numerous attempts from the likes of comrade Challis to simply push for a vote for or against the slate. Nevertheless, the 14 were elected by a similar margin to the steering committee. It was also agreed to have only three reserves despite there being four candidates. I was happy to be reserve number four, but even this lowly position was one I was not allowed. The SWP majority would prefer having a smaller delegation than Sheffield is entitled to if it meant there was any possibility that a CPGB comrade would make up the numbers. This was despite the fact that I gave a commitment to fully support, and speak on, any of the proposed motions coming from the Sheffield branch. The end of the meeting was taken up by the resolutions. Motions were overwhelmingly supported on climate change, deportation of Iraqi Kurds and trade union solidarity action. Motions moved by CPGB supporters on opposition to immigration controls and the religious hatred bill were overwhelmingly defeated. The SWP members who spoke opposed open borders as "not being in the real world", while "only the likes of the BNP" could possibly be against the government's 'incitement to religious hatred' legislation. By this time it was late, and getting more surreal. Does the SWP really think that those in the legal profession and the arts that have come out against the legislation are somehow lining up with the BNP? It was disappointing to again see good SWP members vote down issues they sometimes still claim to believe in. Disappointing, but not unexpected, and I came away with the impression that some of them now genuinely oppose the position they held regarding immigration controls only a couple of years ago. After all, it soon becomes impossible to argue with any conviction for principles that are vehemently opposed within Respect. Eventually theory has to be brought into line with practice. Form a Respect left opposition Conference fringe meeting Saturday November 19 6pm, Lucas Arms, 245a Grays Inn Road, London WC1 all welcome, lots of time for debate